Islamic world 'is living in a state of backwardness'

[Miriam1]

Just curious.

 

Are some saying here that Islam was spread let's through Africa by the sword?

[Cara.]

Socod_Badne,

 

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

The pertinent thing to do on your part is to repudiate her objection by showing Islam didn't spread via

through pillaging and acquisition of wealth

.

Why is the onus of proof on Cambarro? If two people make conflicting claims (and I don't think Naden actually makes the statement you attribute to her), both ought to present facts to bolster their case. At any rate, Cambarro wasn't taking about the spread of Islam, but the flourishing of science and the arts in in some parts of the Islamic world in the Middle Ages (in contrast to the stifling of such in Europe). No one is contesting that, surely?

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Cara:

Why is the onus of proof on Cambarro?

 

She's the claimant. Duh!

 

 

Hayam.. Are some saying here that Islam was spread let's through Africa by the sword?

 

It doesn't matter what we or anyone says. Only what the historical record shows. The answer is qualified yes.

[Naden]

Cambarro, I am not contesting the role of early muslim scholars in the renaissance. No one can. It was your contention that a nomadic/beduin civilization became an empire through scientific advancement. This is only partially true. Yes, the beduin tribes of arabia became a military and financial empire to contend with but Iraq, which would become one of the centers of Islamic thought in those thousand years, was the center also of a much older civilization. Mesopotamia produced a great deal of the earlier writing, math, and sciences. The same can be argued for Egypt. The bedouin tribes of arabia remained largely beduin. No doubt that the scientific pursuits of early muslims in these regions kickstarted the renaissance when much of Europe battled plagues.

[Ms DD]

Socod Badne

 

 

"your part is to repudiate her objection by showing Islam didn't spread via through pillaging and acquisition of wealth ."

 

This is a matter for another thread. Quite irralevent to this topic without going off topic. Obviously that position is one I completely disagree with. There was no pillaging or anything of the sort. Europe was in dark ages, so there was no wealth or knowledge to pillage. The fact the muslims they were tolerant and open to ideas led to these scientific developments. This idea of Islam spreading by sword is something the oreintalist throw about. When people say that islam was spread by the sword they generally mean that conversions were forced. This is a lie. There was never any 'accept islam or die'. The large numbers of non muslims in muslims lands is testimony of this.

I am not so worried by the term 'Islam was spread by the sword'...I recognize it as a dimension of Islam. It just means terretories are opened up, old structures of power are removed and Islam is offered to the people.

 

 

Try to control yourself SB when having a debate with posters. No need to stoop so low as to make personal attacks. It is indeed unbecoming.

Jaqjaq badnidaa heedhe.

[Miriam1]

Socod_badne

 

How about reproducing atleast some of these historical records you speak of, so that we may gain some knowledge that would allow us to make a qualified decision...since you obviously are convinced that Islam was wholly spread by the sword in our continent...

[Dhagax-Tuur]

Interesting.

 

"It doesn't matter what we or anyone says. Only what the historical record shows. The answer is qualified yes"

 

Why don't we allow Sh. Ahmed Deedat to answer that, eh? I am sure that he is more than qualified to give a response to the question than anyone here.

 

Sh. Ahmed (Raxima Lah), take it:

 

Sheik Ahmed Deedat - Click here for the answer

[Naden]

Originally posted by Cambarro:

There was never any 'accept islam or die'.

It just means terretories are opened up, old structures of power are removed and Islam is offered to the people.

:eek:

 

Your first contention is true. The choices were actually 3: islam, gizya, or war.

territories are opened up = invasion

old structures of power are removed = owner or occupiers fought and power annexed

Islam is offered to the people = more like offered as one of 3 choices.

 

Whether this violates the no compulsion in Islam (2:256, 18:29, 10:99, 88, 20-22, and many more) or the admonition to not transgress but return aggression in equal measure (2: 190, 194) is a matter for historical analyses.

 

Originally posted by Hayam:

How about reproducing atleast some of these historical records you speak of, so that we may gain some knowledge that would allow us to make a qualified decision...since you obviously are convinced that Islam was wholly spread by the sword in our continent...

[/QB]

I don’t know about ‘wholly’ or ‘continent’ but records are abound with conquests. To the inclined, a quick read of Al-Tubri’s records gathered by Ibn Kathir in the matter of a battle on some Kurds by Salma bin Qays outlines the communiqué back to Khalifah Omar that the Kurds were given the three choices. They chose war, lost, and had many killed. The women and children were taken as slaves, money annexed, and the fifth of booty and slaves sent back to the khalifah. This you could find in Ibn Kathir’s History p.7/ 133. The kurds had no engagement with the Arabs of the peninsula. Ibn Kathir also documents in his book a trek to Helwan and the choice given to the inhabitants. The people, largely farmers, chose to pay gizya and yet his account shows that their women and children were taken as slaves and split as booty despite agreeing to the surrender and gizya. Similar accounts, given mostly cursory mention and from the viewpoint of the invading arab Muslims, are abound in Al-Tubri’s books and others.

 

History, as they say, is written by the victors and Muslims are taught in schools that the Muslim conquests were largely benevolent acts of spreading the word of God and sparing people the loss of dying as non-Muslims. In the case of some lands as Egypt, Muslim armies, we are taught, freed the people of Egypt from the Byzantine occupation. It is all well and good. What is unfortunate is why we Muslims need to defend some of these historical accounts and men such as Al-Haggag Al Thaqafi.

 

If we believe in god’s words as seen in the verses above and many others, then we’d understand that the annexing of land, money, and slaves had as much to do with empire expansion and wealth gathering as spreading the word of god, if not more. It was a double reward for the early Muslim, gain wealth and guarantee your paradise through jihad, which as a concept continued to mutate after the death of Mohamed (csw).

 

Why, then, worry about these early Muslims’ actions and their legitimacy or bother with making it seem what it was not after the fact? Armies fought and won, Christians fought for god, Muslims fought for god, countries were invaded and people enslaved. Might stole wealth as it does now. It is the human condition. Now, history also attests to the relative peace, tolerance, prosperity, and justice that marked many of the lands rule by Muslims from Andalusia to Baghdad. It also attests to atrocities, power mongering, in-fighting, and more, among Muslims and towards others.

 

The decisions of these rulers on how to proceed with the spreading of the word as they saw it, defending against armies, building an empire, and maneuvering the political climate of the times goes back to them. Invaders or liberators, they were Muslims but NOT Islam.

 

Sorry, SB .

[Miriam1]

prosperity, and justice that marked many of the lands rule by Muslims from Andalusia to Baghdad. It also attests to atrocities, power mongering, in-fighting, and more, among Muslims and towards others.

 

The decisions of these rulers on how to proceed with the spreading of the word as they saw it, defending against armies, building an empire, and maneuvering the political climate of the times goes back to them. Invaders or liberators, they were Muslims but NOT Islam

Hey Naden. Thanks for the response, it was well written and the above bit I agree with "Whole" heartedly !

 

What I annoys me the most is the lack of critical thinking, the ability for some to generalize so much....by throwing around statements like "Islam was spread by the sword" with no room for other considerations....its simply as you said, a human condition...ofcourse there was evil inhand with good.

Many parts of africa, gained knowledge of Islam through their interactions with Muslim merchants who chose to live and do dawah in those areas...and ofcourse there were those the route of voilence...

anyway..good discussion.